Congressional Democrats Looking to Roll Back U.S. Supreme Court Decision

After the news breaking decision by the Supreme court the ramifications of that decision is getting congress now to start looking into what can happen in the US and foreign interest.

Meaning that now they will have to compete with a new hoard of candidates that can be financed by foreign interest with state of the art propaganda to take away their seats.

Many experts believe that the decision will allow U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections. Some even believe that the decision could allow corporations controlled by foreign governments to have a say in American elections.

"The sweeping freedom of speech rhetoric would have applicability to foreigners," Edward Foley, an election-law expert at The Ohio State University, told the Web site Talking Points Memo.

“The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics,” Pat Choate, an author and former Reform Party candidate for vice president, told Politico. “It’ll happen instantaneously. It’ll happen in the 2010 elections. … The Japanese corporations, the European corporations will do it instantly through American subsidiaries.”

Can American soft money compete with unlimited funds supplies by China, Saudi Arabia or the Emirates?

For the politicraps of their choices or for new ones?

The fight is not for us the people and our best interest is for the best interest of those in power that now will have to start fighting for their seats from foreign funded interest.

For instance, the ruling opens the door for Toyota to spend billions to defeat a U.S. Senator that supports imposing tariffs on imports of Japanese automobiles. The Chinese government itself could use one of its many state-owned corporations to similarly influence elections.

Congress is actually afraid of the decision after all.

www.economyincrisis.org...

reply to post by marg6043


Well, it is good that they see the danger in the decision.
Problem is, I don't know what can be done about it.
Ammendment?
I'm not sure.

if you pass a law that limits every "PERSON" to a 1,000 dollar donation, you eliminate the problem....or pass a law redefining what a "PERSON" is, to reflect original intent.

reply to post by jimmyx


The problem is that they DID just redefine what a "person" is.
Away from original intent, imo.

Jefferson spoke a bit about the role of corporations in the republic and he advised dilligence to avoid just this sort of thing.

It's the most dangerous to democracy Supreme Court Decision ever made. If it takes an amendment it must be done.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them , will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas Jefferson

[edit on 30-1-2010 by entropy]

Hopefully the Democ-rats are going to outlaw unions, the likes of SEIU, and organizations, the likes of ACORN; two of Obama's favorite contributors and steering organizations; in their legislation.

Probably not. But still hopeful.

What I will like to know is what very powerful groups of private interest where involved in this Supreme court decision.

While many debate that this was a rightfull decision and one that support the freedom of speech, actually it is not.

This went in behave of big interest in the corporate world that competes with soft money under the table against unions money.

But something that the Supreme court didn't foresaw or perhaps didn't care about it is the ramifications of the decision on powerful and very well funded private entities.

Is our Supreme court considered traitors to the nations best interest and has been bought by private foreign money?.

I wonder.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


ACORN is TINY compared to even one of our own corporations. It's a very small group, only a couple of thousand I think. Labor unions are also small potatoes compared to even a mid-sized American corporation.

What people are especially worried about is the really, really big money coming from the multinationals.

Here, look at this.

Notice the justice on the far right, not Alito... on the rear row. This woman was actually looking straight at Alito BEFORE he made his little "not true" comment.
This tells me that he has too much influence in the court.



Furthermore, any SC vote that splits 5-4 shouldn't be considered "legal"... as obviously this is still up in the air.
It only makes matters worse when the Justices are voting along party lines. ie, All "conservative" justices vote one way, while the liberals vote another way.
This is politics.
Remember, they are appointed by the president.

This has to change....

But once again, look at the blonde justice LOOKING at the guy making the outburst in ANTICIPATION that he would do so.

reply to post by marg6043


People on ATS are always talking about a New World Order. That's what could happen if these giant multi-nationals, who don't care about ANY country, only their own interests, are allowed to buy our political process.

There is already too much corporate money going into political campaigns. Campaign finance reform didn't eliminate all the loopholes, there are still too many ways that big money can be funneled to candidates, but that will seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the floodgates that will be opened by this Supreme Court decision.

Congress MUST act quickly to amend this ruling, the worst one since the Dred Scott case in the 1800's.

reply to post by JayinAR


Interesting that you took note of what was going on in that video, I would never had taken such care to see beyond.

reply to post by Sestias


One thing that scares me about the NWO is that perhaps is here already working behind our government against us for their global agendas.

I know since the big bail out last year, the leaching of US jobs without regards for the American workers.

Americans will never accept a one world currency or an American union, they will never accept one world Order exposed. . . but what we can tell so far that is international powers working already in America with more powers to themselves into our government that we the people will ever have.

That is a fact.

I wonder if the decision of the Supreme court was just a bold movement to show who really runs this nation and our politics (something that we conspiracy believers has know always) or they did it to expose the real power behind those that controls the government, taking into consideraton the growing anger of the people against the govenremnt, after all now that soft money doesn't need to be under table people will get to know who really the enemy of the people truly are

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

ACORN is TINY compared to even one of our own corporations. It's a very small group, only a couple of thousand I think. Labor unions are also small potatoes compared to even a mid-sized American corporation.

What people are especially worried about is the really, really big money coming from the multinationals.

So small, by your standards, corruption is OK and condonable? Should all avenues of corruption be addressed?

By the decision brought down it did not roll back any of the current limitation on directly financing a candidate.....why can people not see this? Is it because they do not want to?

Foreign Contributions to Candidates Prohibited: Still Intact
Direct Contributions via a Corporation Prohibited: Still Intact

The only thing changed is that a Corporation can speak freely via ads, written statements, movies, etc. within 30 days of an election.

Here is a thought exercise....what if Congress wanted to shut down ATS and other websites that perpetuate far-out ideas and dissent before an election?

Wouldn't you like the ability of ATS to be able to defend itself and promote a candidate (via ads, articles, etc) that wishes to protect the freedom of speech that we are afforded? Or would you rather accept the notion that because ATS is an LLC it should be prohibited from expressing the collective voice?

The Democrats need to tread carefully. Whatever precedent they set here can and will be used in the future against them when the right is back in power - like repealing Supreme Court decisions that lean too far to the left.

reply to post by sos37


Repealing Supreme Court Decisions that lean too far to the left?
You realize that it was split five/four along party lines right?
And that the five that voted "yea" were the conservatives, right?

What is it with some people who try to make everything left vs. right?

When will some folks realize that it is a false paradigm?